Small disclaimer: I am not an expert driver so it’s very possible to record faster times than I managed. However, when I talked to a friend that is much faster than me, he confirmed the observations I’m laying out in this post.
The 2002 Chevrolet Camaro SS and the 2002 Pontiac Trans Am WS6 are very similar cars. In fact, one could say they’re twins. They both have the same Corvette-derived LS1 V8 with functional hood scoops feeding it cold air, and both have the very same T56 6-speed transmission and 7.5" 10-bolt differential with identical gearing (at least in-game, different ratios were a factory option). The brakes and tire profile is the same, too. The similarities continue inside as well, with both examples modeled in FM7 being well-optioned, with optional leather, T-tops, and traction control, in addition to power windows, locks, and driver seat. If these two are so similar, then why is their performance so different? This question led me on a fact-finding mission.
Forza Motorsport 7 Models the 2002 Camaro rather faithfully (though I find it a bit disappointing that the hood and rear hatch aren’t interactive in Forzavista). It drives like a marriage between older muscle cars of yore and something substantially more modern, which is partially why I enjoy driving it so much. (That, and the '99 Z28 in my driveway.) It’s got some weight and roll to it, but thanks to its wide tires and torque it can generally find a line on a corner and power right out. With a few upgrades it’s a star in B class, but for the purposes of this discussion (for now, at least) we’re going to keep both cars stock.
The Camaro’s tuning and garage menus of the game give data that’s more or less analogous to expectations: 0-60mph in 5.19 seconds, 0-100 in 11.84, top speed of 164.1 (though with the very tall 6th gear, you may not ever reach it). These figures line up perfectly to a Motor Trend test I looked up to research this post. However, the brakes appear to function worse than reality in the menu, giving us 60-0/100-0 distances of 134.8/339.8 ft, instead of an expected 120/329 ft. I’m willing to bet that this discrepancy mostly has to do with how the game calculates this test; it has a habit of locking tires. However, there’s another discrepancy that’s more difficult to account for: the weight distribution. We’re given a 55% front, 45% rear balance, which isn’t the same as the sources I have, which provide a 56/44 F/R balance. While this is only 35.54 pounds being “misplaced” it does mean that the car is actually a little less nose-heavy than it should be. On the subject of weight, the depiction in FM7 seems a little heavy overall. Every source I can find puts the car’s curb weight well below the hefty 3554 lbs the game claims, though if laden with 16 gallons of gas the number seems much more reasonable. I don’t have any real skidpad data to compare to for the amount of G-force the car can make, so I’m willing let that go. Additionally, while I put little faith in the PI system or “bars” for the cars, I’ll go ahead and list them here: Speed 6.5, Handling 4.7, Acceleration 7.5, Braking 4.5. Its PI rating is C/481, which puts it a bit above homologated “Classic Road Racers” cars.
The 2002 model year was the swan song of Pontiac’s F-body offering: the Firebird. The Firebird Trans Am WS6 was known for being the more aggressive and outlandishly-styled of the F-body twins. With a bulging ram-air hood, a total of six air inlets on the car’s front and a stubborn insistence upon using pop-up headlights, it’s easy to see why. Though the hood and rear are still not interactive it at least looks very good in FM7. It feels a bit nose-heavy and more prone to understeer than its twin, which is strange because both cars have the same track, tire, tire profile, and suspension tuning. While there is a bit more weight up front from the pop-up headlights, I have my doubts for that being an explanation.
The problems don’t end there for Forza’s rendition of the WS6. Its somewhat unimpressive 0-60mph time of 5.20 seconds and 0-100 of 12.5. Both of these figures aren’t exactly what one would expect compared to real-world testing, which shows the WS6 being at least as fast (if not slightly faster) than a Camaro SS in the quarter. Perhaps the least strange thing about this cavalcade of numbers is how the T/A manages to have a higher top speed (though again, the tall 6th gear will prevent you from ever attaining it). So what gives? It’s not the 3495 lb overall weight of the car, which is about 60 pounds less than its sister. (One of my sources gives this exact number for the curb weight of a manual T/A, while another claims it’s 3397. Annoyingly, neither specifies options.) Well, it’s not as simple as the car being heavy. It’s not balanced properly. FM7 models the car as having 58/42 front/rear distribution, which is wrong compared to both its Chevy twin and to the source I found. It should be balanced identically to the Camaro: 56/44. This makes for a total of 69.9 pounds that are “misplaced” on the car, which means that the car is understeering into corners more and not able to transfer as much weight rearward to help straight-line traction. This hurts the braking as well, and while I don’t believe the 60-0/100-0 distances of 136.0/341.5 ft thanks to the calculator locking the tires, it doesn’t make sense when MT claims a (MY 2000) WS6 they tested stopped from 60-0 in 121 feet, 12 better than the Camaro of that year. Just to be consistent, I’ll list off the “stats” the garage gives the car: Speed 6.3, Handling 4.6, Acceleration 7.2, Braking 4.3. Its PI is C/425, meaning that it’s (at least in theory) slower than homologated “Hot Hatch Icons”, “Vintage Sport Coupe” and “Rebirth of Muscle” cars.
To find out if all of this investigating translates into real advantages (and to check as to whether or not the '02 T/A is actually equal to the '02 Camaro but with 56 less PI) I drove each car for 8 laps at Sebring Full, in dry, sunny conditions. Why Sebring Full? I can be consistent on it. The results speak for themselves. Completing the 8 laps in the Camaro SS took 20:23.277, and my fastest lap was a 2:31.048. This makes my average lap a 2:32.909, including the out lap. Then I moved on to the Trans Am, and things got disappointing. The car seems noticeably slower in third and fourth gears. The shift points are the same, but it doesn’t seem to accelerate as well. The 8 laps took 21:07.682, a 44.405 second margin of defeat for the T/A. The fastest lap in the Pontiac was a 2:37.182, over 6 seconds slower than the best in the Camaro. The average lap (again, including the out lap) was a 2:38.460, 5.551 seconds slower than the Camaro’s average.
So after all this fun fact-finding and number crunching, I’m still left with questions:
- Why is the weight distribution on both the 2002 Trans Am WS6 and 2002 Camaro SS wrong?
- Why exactly is the 2002 Camaro SS so heavy?
- Is there a factor like aerodynamic drag slowing down the 2002 Trans Am?
Sources:
http://www.transamworld.com/2002-firebird-specifications.php
